Stats

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Well, I suppose there are things that should not surprise anyone. DailyKos is to the left of this blog and most I read. In fact, since the day of the "I feel nothing, screw them" post (eventually taken down), I never even felt the urge to engage in linking, much less discussing any comment or post by this blog or discussing anything with any member/commenter from the blog. Not that I think I'm big enough to garner any attention from them and that is alright by me. I'll stay small in my corner of the blog world.

Politics? Maybe, but my antipathy to such a place is bound more by its antithetical ideology and morality than politics. I've felt anger, sadness, extreme happiness and many other emotions over people and things they do, but I don't think I've actively and gladly advocated the death of anyone or cheered it on (with the exception of Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi and Zawahiri; one hopefully would be forgiven for that) in such a manner as I have seen in posts and comments at that site. It simply seems beyond a lack of civility, but a gleeful dance in blood too often justified by some skewed view that most of the world is screwed up so "screw them".

Except for this small part of the internet world where "reality based" folks hang out in never, never land, imagining themselves to be the arbiters of freedom and light.

In fact, I hesitate to link to them now regarding the continuing spiral downward of Venezuelan democracy and the rise of the latest dictator in the guise of democratic elected government. I hesitate because I have seen what happens when someone posts a disagreement with their posts. I even had the pleasure of a back handed link (ie, a rather infamous right wing blog linked to something I wrote on oil consumption, production, etc), once upon a time, where some of their illustrious thinkers came over and explained to me the error of my ways with language that my sailor friends would be embarrassed to repeat.

Essentially, they agree with the Guardian opinion piece indicating that the TV station had been advocating the overthrow of Chavez's legally elected government. They both state that, if a TV station or other media in the US openly acted like that in the US against a sitting president, the same thing would happen to them, if not worse.

That may be the truth, but there is something wrong with advocating for a rising tyrant in the name of law. Something this group believes it opposes everyday by keeping tabs on the "legal" acts of this president in regards to wire taps, money transfers, patriot acts and any number of other congressional and presidential acts. We are talking about the man (Chavez) who had his national assembly declare emergency laws and suspend elections making him the sole authority for the next eight years (if not longer). We are talking about the man that dissolved the assembly and has actively subjugated the Venezuelan Supreme Court.

Someone may declare Godwin's law on me, but I have to point out that tyrants are often and quite usually the best at using the law (and abusing it) in order to confirm their legal right to be dictating tyrants. The best examples being Hitler and Stalin. These two men were obsessed with establishing their legal right to do all of the things that they planned and did. They kept records to insure they followed every legal process under the then established law.

We argue here in the United States about legality and opposing acts that are substantively against principle, if not constitutionally questionable. Yet, we are supposed to support Chavez's actions because they are "legal".

If we applied the rest of the never, never land rationale for legal v. treasonable acts, we would have to support the immediate dissolution of the Democrat led congress, CBS, CNN and, of course, the demise of the Kos along with the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of protesters (with their "Bush is Hitler", burning Bush in effigy and many signs that actively advocate the overthrow of the government and death to the President) and their possible execution (the acceptable punishment under the law) for treason.

Somehow, I doubt that these folks would be so accepting or advocate such actions against themselves or their ideological followers. Neither do I, for the record. I only make this point because it's paradoxic, if not bizarre, nature.

I read in the comments people referring to Chavez and his ideas as "noble" and "honorable". I've seen open surgeries, dead bodies at their worst and any number of things that might make one go into hyper-emesis (that's "vomiting" to the lay person) without blinking an eye, but the thought that Chavez and his actions are "noble" and "honorable" is enough to make me hurl without end. Nausea barely describes the feeling.

As another commenter, clearly dissenting, points out:

'I just don't see how we can rightly pillory Bush for his corruption of the Justice Department and then applaud Comrade Hugo while he eviscerates the Venezuelan constitution. It's depressing to ask how many folks here only object to authoritarianism when it's a right-wing phenomenon.'

Indeed. Principles be damned. As long as the actor is an ideological fellow, it's alright. This is, of course, how Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler (of course) were able to kill millions (and many still do kill hundreds of thousands) in the name of some idea or other while the rest of the world stands by.

Saddam Hussein.

I wanted to say that name and place it in the pantheon of serial, mass murderers who continue to be lamented as the oppressed. They are the revolution.

Kos and his fellows see themselves as the "revolution".

I rejected the revolution a long time ago and hope that it stays largely in the never, never land of the dailyKos.

If not, for such as the Kossacks and the Chavez folks of the world, I leave my own message of "screw them":

1 comment:

One of the links there mentioned something I was previously unaware of:

Indeed, what is most worrying about Chávez's repression is how systematic it has become. The government has built a detailed list - the Maisanta database - that documents the political leanings of 12.4 million Venezuelan registered voters. The list is routinely used to deny opposition supporters access to public jobs and government social programs.

(That particular piece was in fact written by an anti-Chavez leftist.)

I'd also recommend the C.C.'s (very long) essay on the 2002 coup against Chavez. I didn't realize that in the run-up of the coup, the military (heroically) refused Chavez's orders to employ deadly (rather than non-lethal force) against anti-Chavez demonstrators: